Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2018 [1].

Mullum Malarum

edit
Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kettavan kettidil kittidum rajayogam... When the bad is weak and devoid of strength, it results in good fortune. Fall twice, stand up thrice. Last time the FAC failed not because of article content, but because of slow progress and me not actively pursuing reviewers, something I hope not to repeat this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit

Lead, 1a:

  • I'm seeing a formula repeated from other articles on films—a formula that involves poor sentence formation right at the top. This systemic, almost industrial reproduction of format and content—in a few places right down to sentence level—is a problem in articles on popular culture. Here is the sentence at issue:

    "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name. [It tells the story of ...]"

    Two quite different propositions are jammed into one sentence. The personnel (the starring actors and the director) are one thing; the fact that the film is loosely based on a novel is quite different. Even if segmented by a comma or something more marked, it would still be problematic. So we explore re-aligning the propositions: "The film starred Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, and was Mahendran's directorial debut. Loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name, Mullum Malarum tells the story of ...". More logical thematic flow?

    For FA candidates I'd like to some of these systemic issues questioned, so the topic might benefit more broadly by example.

I've split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production was tumultuous as Chettiar opposed casting Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor and Chettiar reluctantly agreed."

    "tumultuous" normally refers to physical chaos, like the noise made by a crowd. But you're using it metaphorically here. What you mean is "tricky", but that's a little informal. "troublesome" isn't quite right. "problematic", perhaps. Or "complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting ..."?

    Second, there's "as" (a because "as"), then "as" (in a different sense), then another "because" word. It doesn't read smoothly. Consider a semicolon before "but", and a comma after "actor".

Reworded with complicated. You've left some open-ended <p>s, please close them since I can see the broken syntax through syntax highlighting. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book."—You've already told us it's based "loosely" on the book ... a few seconds ago. Perhaps that needs to be down here instead. What's the logical relation between before and after the comma here? Is it only where M. didn't read the book that it deviates? This is a messy implication, and I'm not sure it's what the sources say.
In his autobiography, Mahendran admitted to not having read the whole book, and this appears necessary to mention. So I've removed "loosely". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released on 15 August 1978, during India's Independence Day."—So 15 August is that Day? Why is "on" clashing with "during"?
15 August is India's Independence Day. I've removed "during". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it opened to tepid box-office earnings"—it opened to earnings? Weird. But very nice to use a metaphor: "Although it opened to a tepid box-office earnings"
If you are confused by the wording, I'll tell you what happened: the film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor, but it improved in the third or fourth week due to positive word of mouth. Now how do I write this without bloating the sentence? Or can I replace "earnings" with performance"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise"—you've just mentioned word of mouth. How do you know every viewer was praising? Surely its "critical praise".
Done: wrote critical praise. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film won ... the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for Rajinikanth." Sounds like the film leapt out of the camera and nominated the actor. Not possible. Reword ... the actor won the award for his performance, surely?
Done: wrote "Rajinikanth won the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for his performance". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a milestone of Tamil cinema"—I presume this will be justified in the body of the article.
  • "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth as an actor and a milestone of Tamil cinema, focused more on visuals without excessive melodrama and other Tamil cinema conventions that Mahendran disliked."

    (1) More than what? (2) So there was melodrama; just not excessive melodrama, right? And to support the post-qualifier (that M. disliked), you need a "the" before "excessive".

  • Is "also" doing anything?
I think it was a milestone because it focused more on visuals than excessive melodrama and other things the director disliked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not promising so far. Tony (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, it appears this is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you have more comments? Can you please see if your current comments have been resolved? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
Resolved comments
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the first sentence of the lead. I would put a period after “J. Mahendran” and just have it be about the director/screenplay writer. I would either make the producers part into its own sentence and add in the production company, or remove it altogether as I uncertain if they need to be listed in the lead.
Split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the third sentence of the lead’s first paragraph to the second sentence to help with the flow.
  • For this sentence (It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran (his superior) at a power plant.), I would see if there is a way to present this information without the parenthesis as I am not sure if it helps the sentence curretly.
Removed the parenthesis. It was GOCE editor Miniapolis who added it, and I did not want to argue. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this part (Chettiar reluctantly agreed) is necessary as we already know that Rajinianth was cast according to information presented in the first paragraph.
Agreed. I removed it and wrote, "who he felt was perfect as the character". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted him with the screenplay), I would remove the (also a director) part as it is not relevant to this article.
I think Mahendra assisted Mahendran since he was already an established director. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise the following sentence (The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book.), as the “with…” sentence contrsuction is discouraged on an FA level.
  • Something about this sentence (Filming lasted for about 30 days, primarily in Sringeri, and also took place in Ooty.) sounds off to me, specifically the last portion. Maybe something like the following would be better (Filming lasted for about 30 days, taking place primarily in Sringeri and also in Ooty.).
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (make it a success, with a 100-day theatrical run), perhaps replace (, with a 100-day theatrical run) to (over a 100-day theatrical run)?
I've written "with a theatrical run of over 100 days". That good? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for the following phrase (were orphaned in childhood), it should be “during childhood”.
Done accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the “Cast” section have a reference?
All the cast members and their character names are sourced under "Casting". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in the following two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm. He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.)
What do I write then? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would see if you could revise the following sentence (A significant difference between the novel and the film is that in the novel, Kali loses his arm to a tiger; in the film, he loses it when he is run over by a lorry.) as it is somewhat awkwardly constructed (i.e. the repetition of “the novel” and “the film”).
See what I've written now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept the offer either.), I would avoid the repetition of “accept the offer”.
Now I've written Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Mahendra accepted to work on the film), I think “agreed to work” would be better.
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change this part (The film features no duets,) to the following (The film does not include any duets,) as the current wording sounds off to me.
I've done accordingly. But now it reads, "The film does not include any duets, which was considered a rarity for Tamil cinema at that time". What do you suggest now? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In 2006, director S. Shankar said that he entered the film industry "with dreams of directing films such as Mullum Malarum" but never got to make such films.), I could cut down on the repetition of the word “film”.
I've written, "but never got to make any". But doesn't it create the impression that he never got to make any film at all? In the source he says "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems understandable in the context, but my original comment was advising you not to use the same word repeatedly in the same sentence, and it could have been solved just by using different words. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find the above comments to be helpful, and good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will provide further comments by the end of the week. If I have not commented anything by Saturday, then please ping me about it. I enjoy reading this article, as I love learning about different films. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have solved the majority of your comments. Please strike out those that have been solved. Besides, is this info about the cinematographer correct as per the source? Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. Source 1 reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together" and source 2 reads, "Ashok Kumar was called to shoot Mullum Malarum, but he could not accept it then." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence appears correct to me according to the two sources, though I would revise it to the following (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematography, but he did not accept the offer; he then suggested Ashok Kumar, who was unable to work on the film.) to avoid the repetition of the word "accept". Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done exactly as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of poster is the infobox image? Was it a theatrical poster (i.e. released around the same time as the film) or was it something created later? I would clarify this in the caption.
Honestly, I have no idea. Earlier I wrote "theatrical release poster" but removed since I could not confirm it. But I do know the poster is official, since it was obtained from the NFAI archives. Do I write "NFAI poster" with the term linked? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is my only remaining comment for the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Written NFAI poster in the caption. A message to the co-ordinators: I'll be travelling till Saturday, and I hope someone will address any other issues in my absence. Ssven2 has said he will try, but can't promise. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

edit

Most of my concerns were covered satisfyingly in the previous FAC. Still, to ensure that i should be sure before voicing out my opinion loud and clear, i went through the article again. And these are what i am having issues with.

  • "It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran, his superior, at a power plant." -- what exactly is clashing here with Kumaran?
  • "Production was complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting Rajinikanth" -- cast might be a better choice, no?
Done, used "cast" as a verb. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed." -- Sorry to say this, but should. A director would pitch an idea to a producer only if he /she likes it in the first place. Why to say "also impressed"?
Veera Narayana, now I've rewritten using this translation of content from Mahendran's book. Please proof-read and tell me if I made a mistake or missed something essential to solve the dilemma. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day he puts henna on her feet at night while she sleeps." -- a comma is missing.
Added. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baradwaj Rangan said in 2004 that Mahendran "proved himself a sublime storyteller" -- Was that comment a general one or exclusively related to this film? Please be clear.
The source reads, "With poems on celluloid that include Mullum Malarum, Metti, Poottaadha Poottukkal and, especially, Udhiri Pookkal, Mahendran proved himself a sublime storyteller almost a decade before Rathnam". But now I feel it doesn't add much; it is best removed, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the case, then yes. Let me know when you address the remaining comments as well. Veera Narayana 08:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten to be clearer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these are cleared, i don't have any objection to give it a pass. Veera Narayana 16:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- All my concerns have been addressed. Regards, Veera Narayana 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clikity's comments

edit
  • The prose in this article needs a lot of work. I'm leaning towards an Oppose right now. I'll list some things below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talk • contribs)
Alright Clikity, what are the comments? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been busy this week, will suggest some things. Clikity (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

This nom has been open a month and although there is some support for promotion, we don't have consensus as there are concerns with the prose that suggest a solid copyedit is needed. I'd prefer that take place outside FAC so will be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mullum_Malarum/archive3&oldid=866057933"